GenuineVC David Beisel's Perspective on Digital Change

Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’

January 26, 2007

This morning I was reading this week’s issue of Chris Shipley’s Guidewire report which addressed a popular topic du jour, asking whether or not we’re in a bubble for web-based businesses. The paper argues that “compared to the Dot Com boom of the late 90’s very little money has been invested Web 2.0 companies. Indeed, these companies required little or no investment in order to explore early concepts and put beta sites into the market.” While it’s true that the absolute dollars put to work is in fact lower, that doesn’t seem like automatic cause for dismissal for an environment that feels frothy.

But further on in the introductory analysis of this report is a line that I can really agree with, “While the low capital requirements remove a significant roadblock to starting a web-based company, they mask the real economics of business building.”

It rhymes very much with Fred Wilson’s post from a month ago “Web 2.0 is A Gift, Not a Threat, to VCs” in which he plots in a great chart the capital requirements for startups over their development, and further says that “It may take only two or three great developers to build and launch a web service. But it still takes a bunch more to maintain it, develop it from there, deal with scalability, deal with feature enhancements, take the service in new directions, respond to competitive threats, etc, etc.”

And entrepreneurs are feeling the same way. These sentiments rang familiar a conversation I had with a serial web entrepreneur in NYC last week, who commented to me that while “the bar for launching a service is lower, but the bar for success is higher.” In other words, web companies who are attempting to leverage network effects to drive sustainable long term value are having difficulty because of the volume of companies launching places a strain on the available pool of “true” early adopters willing to try a service. The loud echo-chamber marketplace makes it extremely difficult now (vs. two years ago) to rise about the noise to spread the word in the blogosphere or other natural communications forums applicable to the target market.

As a consequence, consumer web services are being forced to attract customers outside this ecosystem. While I’ve seen some entrepreneurs with successes in utilizing offline marketing to incite behavior online, my experience has shown that the best way to get people do something online is while their online – after all, they’re already there. I think that as some Web 2.0 shakeout emerges over the coming months, we’ll see a trend that the ones which endure beyond the initial flash are those which have incorporated the marketing of the service directly into the service itself.

Nisan Gabbay hit the nail on the head in his guest post on Masheable last month when he said that for a company to be an internet success story “it must either be a true viral marketing candidate (likely a communication service at its core) or it must be a strong candidate for leveraging natural search traffic.” If a service is truly viral (i.e. the act of referring another user is deeply ingrained into service itself) or directly leverages natural search, then it possesses a more predicable sustainable way to continue to build traffic (and leverage network effects over time).

The title to the aforementioned Guidewire report is spot on – “Web2.0 is Dead, Long Live Web 2.0.” We’ll continue to see experimentation with the launch of new services and companies, but we’ll also increasingly see those which haven’t generated traction fall away. And many of those with the potential to create an enduring company will need additional capital. It may be easier to start something these days, but it’s still difficult to make it last.

Interesting post. Good for perspective. I personally like the fact that the meters are in place. It encourages people to be conscious about the use of parking, which makes for a better experience when going into downtown buy iphone

http://www.nikeairjordan8.net air jordan 8

One of the most distinct features of Battiers air jordan 8 is the large stick out strap. There is one on the upper and the other supports the back of the foot. Both these straps provide a lockdown fit as well as leaving a modern look that quells true to the LBJ trademark design. Despite its lockdown fit, this sneak accepts an enhanced cushioning complete its Zoom Air Units. Traction and flexibility is achieved through the respectable rubber outsole. The partnership between Lebron James and Nike air jordan 8 aqua has left alone to a signature sneaker assembling that could rival that of Michael Jordan's Air Jordans shoes. Known for their modernistic design and maximum comfort and protection, the Lebron signature series clears use of writing out edge features that solidify its claim as one of the most sanative nike air jordan 8 basketball shoe appeals ever to be created. The Nike Air Jordan 2010 is a really red carpet shoe for a number of reasons. However, the reason that supreme the list most for the creation of this sneaker is obvious. The celebration kind of shoe marks the 25th year of the Day Of Remembrance of the air jordan 8 retro line as a rule. What sacks up this shoe outdoor stage out from the opposite Nike Jordan basketball signature shoes is that this shoe comprises the very future of the Jordan brand in the internationalistic. The main reason there is such a lot of plug about real and air jordan 8 fusions basketball shoes, and other products in the world-wide, is that the unfeigned articles that are thought real are sold for say US$350, while the same article made in the homophonic factory on the same product line but shipped to a variant wholesaler is then sold for perhaps US$89. The shoes made by the same manufacturers? Are they in fact a knock off since they are made in the idempotent factory or are they a replica so therefore the same tone but not genuine because they are not sold like a shot by the "Big N" for over US$120 more?

About Me

I am a cofounder and Partner at NextView Ventures, a dedicated seed-stage venture capital firm making investments in internet-enabled startups. Read More »